On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 12/21/2015 07:40 PM, Laura Abbott wrote: > > + The tradeoff is performance impact. The noticible impact can vary > > + and you are advised to test this feature on your expected workload > > + before deploying it > > What if instead of writing SLAB_MEMORY_SANITIZE_VALUE, we wrote 0's? > That still destroys the information, but it has the positive effect of > allowing a kzalloc() call to avoid zeroing the slab object. It might > mitigate some of the performance impact. We already write zeros in many cases or the object is initialized in a different. No one really wants an uninitialized object. The problem may be that a freed object is having its old content until reused. Which is something that poisoning deals with. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>